Ethical Subjectivism

discussing Ethical Subjectivism (aka Subjectivism, Individual Relativism, or Subjective Relativism). The question that we will be asking is: What forms the basis of
moral knowledge? From Hume’s perspective, the answer to this question is: It is emotional experience that forms the basis of all of our moral judgments.

The materials in the first module titled David Hume and Ethical Subjectivism provides you with the required materials. This week’s discussion is informed by Hume’s A
Treatise of Human Nature.

In completing your homework, which can be found in the module titled "Homework", you need to make sure to illustrate that you understand the theory and, at
least, some of the problems that it faces.

*****Discussion Essay Instructions*****

In the following passage, Ted Bundy (the serial killer) attempts to justify his actions by adopting moral subjectivism:

"…I discovered that to become truly free, truly unfettered, I had to become truly uninhibited. And I quickly discovered that the greatest obstacle to my
freedom, the greatest block and limitation to it, consists in the insupportable ‘value judgment’ that I was bound to respect the rights of others. I asked myself, who
were these ‘others?’ Other human beings, with human rights? Why is it more wrong to kill a human animal than any other animal, a pig or a sheep or a steer? Is your
life more than a hog’s life to a hog? Why should I be willing to sacrifice my pleasure more for the one than for the other? Surely, you would not, in this age of
scientific enlightenment, declare that God or nature has marked some pleasures as ‘moral’ or ‘good’ and others as ‘immoral’ or ‘bad’? In any case, let me assure you,
my dear young lady, that there is absolutely no comparison between the pleasure that I might take in eating ham and the pleasure I anticipate in raping and murdering
you. That is the honest conclusion to which my education has led me–after the most conscientious examination of my spontaneous and inhibited self."(Quoted from
Ethics: Discovering Right and Wrong, 5th edition, p.30)

The passage in bold indicates his main argument for subjective relativism. He is basically saying that there is no objective criterion by which to judge which
preferences are good or bad because neither God nor human nature (that’s what he means when he says "nature") can provide us with such an objective
criterion. In other words, he argues that since there is neither God or human nature that could tell us which actions are right or wrong, we are forced to accept
Ethical Subjectivism.

Is it the case that if such objective criteria (cannot be derived from these two theories, we must accept ethical subjectivism? (This question is also discussed in
relation to Cultural Relativism).

Could you accept subjective relativism and condemn Ted Bundy’s actions? Why or why not?